Main menu:

Site Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Similar Posts

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Categories

Archive

Iran Fever (part 3)

This is a continuation of previous posts. See part 1 and part 2.

Originally I was planning to write about everything that has taken place between the U.S. and Iran, or between the Bush administration and the American people concerning Iran, with the same level of detail I’ve used until now. Once we arrived at the present, I would be free to post a short update now and then whenever anything new happened.

The trouble is that with so much going on, I keep sliding deeper into a hole. I barely have time to read the articles myself, much less present them here. By the time the U.S. really does attack Iran—after the resignation of our top generals, and a failed revolt in Congress—I will be writing about events that are a year old!

To avoid this embarassment, from now on I will skip ahead as quickly as I can, with an ultracondensed version of events, and little or no commentary from me. With one or two exceptions, the original articles are linked, so if something catches your eye, you can read then in full.

January 13, 2007

Tough Talk About Iran: How Far Will It Go?—Newsweek

    Has George W. Bush ordered up a “secret war” against Iran and Syria? Some administration opponents on Capitol Hill began asking this question after U.S. forces in recent weeks arrested two groups of Iranian government representatives inside Iraq. […] Recent intel indicates the government of Iran, or elements in it, have stepped up interference in Iraqi political affairs and the supply of weapons to Iraqi Shiite insurgents…. “The reason you keep hearing about Iran is we keep finding their stuff there,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace said Friday. Two of the officials, however, indicated Bush had not signed a secret order…authorizing…covert operations to undermine the governments of Iran and Syria.

January 14, 2007

Iranian President Visits Venezuela to Strengthen Ties—New York Times

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran arrived [in Caracas] on Saturday for talks with President Hugo Chàvez, on the first leg of a Latin American visit to enhance Tehran’s stature with governments where distrust of the Bush administration already runs deep. It is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s second visit to Venezuela in the past five months, and the two leaders were scheduled to talk about strengthening their economic ties. […] “Welcome, fighter for just causes,” Mr. Chàvez said in a speech here before the National Assembly, describing Mr. Ahmadinejad as a “revolutionary” and a “brother.”

January 18, 2007

The Steady March to War on Iran: What It Would Take to Stop It—Virginia Tilley in CounterPunch

    The Great Decider is still the president. Mr. Cheney is still the Vice President. […] They have exactly two years to complete the agenda they formulated in the 1990s…by taking out any regional rival to Israel’s uncontested military hegemony. Hence we have increasingly clear signals that, far from withdrawing troops, the US plans to take the next disastrous step in their program: bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and, they hope, change Iran’s regime. […] A strike on Iran by Israel might be the magic bullet for the sinking US neocons and their stumbling military global mission. No Democrat now breathing is going to vote to withhold the US funds necessary to “defending Israel” from an Iranian counter-attack. […] If an Israeli attack is indeed pending, only something close to a coup in Washington can stop it.

January 22, 2007

Iran’s Post-Election Balance—Ali Afshari and H. Graham Underwood in openDemocracy

    On 15 December 2006…the Islamic Republic quietly held simultaneous elections for the Assembly of Experts and city councils throughout the country. […] The big winner of these two elections…was supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. […] The clear loser…was current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The coalition his supporters ran under failed in its primary goal of defeating [former president Hashemi] Rafsanjani and his allies. […] The elections show that Iran’s transformation from an Islamic theocracy to a military autocracy has been suspended. The paramilitary Basij forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that brought Ahmadinejad to power were conspicuously absent from these elections. […] The most pressing question is why Khamenei did not use these forces to support and mobilise for Ahmadinejad.

A Bridge Too Far—Gary Sick, former National Security Council adviser on Iran (now at Columbia University)

    The organizing principle of the new [U.S.] strategy is confrontation with and containment of Shia influence—and specifically Iranian influence—wherever it appears in the region. […] The Israel–Hezbollah war in Lebanon…was perceived by Israel, the United States and the Sunni Arab governments…as an Iranian attempt to extend its power…by challenging both Israel and the Sunni Arab leadership. […] In the following months…senior Saudi officials met privately with equally senior Israeli officials, which was itself a remarkable new development. […] In the meantime, Israel has maintained a drumfire of criticism of Iran’s nuclear program, including suggestions that…Israel may be called upon to launch a strike against Iran on is own. […] The Holy Grail of U.S. Middle East policy has always been the hope of persuading both Arab and Israeli allies to agree on a common enemy…. Trying to get the Arabs to conclude that the Soviet Union was a more immediate threat than Israel was always a losing proposition…but Iran…may fulfill that role more convincingly.

January 23, 2007

Alliance Against Iran—Gary Sick interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations

    SICK: The Sunni states in the Gulf, plus Jordan and Egypt, are very worried about Iranian expansion in the region…. And of course Israel is very worried about Iran and makes no bones about it…. For the United States, I think there’s a perception that by focusing on Iran, you can remove some of the emphasis on Iraq, which of course is a catastrophe. So there are some advantages to all sides….
    GWERTZMAN: There have been rumors of the Saudis meeting with the Israelis. Have you been able to confirm that?
    SICK: There was a report in the Israeli papers that was never denied. […] I do believe the whole Lebanese situation was the galvanizing moment for this emerging strategy. The action by Hezbollah in attacking Israel was seen as an extension of Iranian power and an extension of its influence in the region.
    GWERTZMAN: Then the Iraq invasion was a total mistake, right, because it empowered Shiites?
    SICK: I think it was. […] If there is a new strategy emerging…I think the United States has a couple of important things that it must do for the parties to this coalition…. One is that the United States is going to have to shut up about democratization…. And also, I think it requires the United States to take a more active role in promoting an Arab–Israel settlement of some sort.

Scant Evidence Found of Iran-Iraq Arms Link—Los Angeles Times

    U.S. troops have found mortars and antitank mines with Iranian markings…but there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found. […] The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran. […] U.S. forces have picked up specially shaped charges used to make roadside bombs capable of penetrating advanced armor…. Outside military analysts have questioned how many of these sorts of weapons actually come from Iran. The technology used to make them is simple and widely known in the Middle East….

January 24, 2007

Iraq’s State of DisUnion—Ali Alawi, former Iraqi Minister of Defense, interviewed in National Interest Online

    ALAWI: As much as the United States, or the Bush Administration has objected to possibility of negotiations with Iran, the only alternative course that they have is to confront it, and to challenge it, and to raise the cost of its apparent intervention in the Iraqi crisis. This of course creates a serious problem for the Iraqi government itself…. I mean how can the United States expect that by confronting Iran in Iraq, it is going to get the support of the [Shiia governing coalition] which is to some extent dependent on Iranian support….
    NIO: Do you think that the Iraqi government in Baghdad is free to establish a relationship with Iran that is completely independent from U.S. policy towards Iran?
    ALAWI: The relationship that Iraq needs to have with Iran has to be an independent, neighborly relationship based on the mutual interests of both countries, not necessarily subject to the strategic imperatives of the U.S. government. But we have now, I think, been confronted with the Iraqi government having the support of the United States being withdrawn if it does not, as it were, toe the line when it comes to Iran….

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts—Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, in The Nation

    If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats. I would strongly urge Congress…to hold real hearings on Iran. […] Summon all the President’s men (and women)…. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric. Summon the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or any other lobby promoting confrontation with Iran…. See if the US intelligence community concurs with the dire warnings put forward by these pro-war lobbyists, and if it doesn’t, ask who, then, is driving US policy toward Iran? […] The Bush Administration firmly believes it has all of the authority required to initiate military action against Iran without Congressional approval. […] Democrats in Congress have the opportunity to nip this looming disaster in the bud. […] Democrats should…nullify the War Powers’ authority granted to the President in September 2001 and October 2002 when it comes to Iran. Congress should pass a joint resolution requiring the President to fully consult with Congress about any national security threat…. By buying the time required to fully study the issues pertaining to Iran…Congress may very well spare America…another tragedy like Iraq.

January 26, 2007

Expanding the War to Iran: Another “Urban Legend”?—Leon Hadar on Right Web

    The Israelis…have been playing into the hands of US warriors by suggesting that an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an “existential” threat akin to the European Holocaust…. At the same time, the Saudis have been warning that a nuclear Iran would help transform Tehran into a hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf…. The sense of alarm perpetuated by the Saudis was reinforced through press leaks suggesting that…the Israelis and the Saudis…have been conducting secret talks to coordinate the anti-Iran strategy. […] Signs of coordination on Iran among Washington, Jerusalem and Riyadh have raised the possibility that the Bush administration is trying to draw the outlines of a new strategic consensus involving it, Israel and the pro-US Arab-Sunni regimes…. Anyone who knows how to assess the balance of power in Washington will tell you that when the Americans are joined by the Saudis and the Israelis…in a coordinated effort to harm you, run fast for cover.

Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq—Dafna Linzer in the Washington Post

    The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East…. For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The “catch and release” policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran…. […] The new “kill or capture” program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall…. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
    With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran’s influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria” into Iraq. […] Two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis…. They also referred to [Revolutionary] Guard members as “terrorists.” Such a formal designation could turn Iran’s military into a target of what Bush calls a “war on terror,” with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.

Pat Lang on Bush’s Order Re Iranian Agents—Colonel Pat Lang, Retired, former Middle East analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer for CNN’s “The Situation Room”

    LANG: There’s a kind of cycle of accelerated statements and heated developments that’s going on now that tends to…push you in the direction of war. And something like that, in which we start to eliminate their people because we have information that we think might incriminate them…is a very dangerous escalating move.
    BLITZER: Well, what would happen if the U.S. does kill these Iranians and the president has signed off on it?
    LANG: They could retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a big way. […] They have hundreds of thousands of people from the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard corps already in Iraq.
    BLITZER: Hundreds of thousands?
    LANG: Oh, yes. That’s a well-established figure that’s thought to be true across the community of people that look at this. […] And if they get sufficiently angry with us, they can start retaliating directly against our forces. […] They’re very skilled at this. They’ve done it all over the world.

Militant Attack Used Deception, U.S. Army Type Uniforms—press release of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Multi-National Force

    At approximately 5 p.m. [on January 20], a convoy consisting of at least five sport utility vehicles entered the Karbala compound. The armed militants wore American-looking uniforms and carried U.S. type weapons convincing Iraqi checkpoints to allow their passage. Once inside the compound, [they] engaged the American troops…. The attackers broke off the assault withdrawing from the compound with four captured U.S. Soldiers. [Iraqi authorities gave chase. The attackers abandoned their vehicles in a neighboring province, after shooting the captured soldiers in the head.] “The precision of the attack…suggests that the attack was well rehearsed prior to execution,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl….

The Deadly U.S.–Iranian Contest in Iraq—Helena Cobban in “Just World News”

    The January 20 raid on the joint US–Iraqi security “coordination” center in Karbala was…worrying for the US commanders in Iraq…. The sophistication and scale of the attack has left some people guessing that Iranian or pro-Iranian operatives were involved. If so, the operation may well have started out as an attempt to capture and hold some US soldiers “in response to” the US forces’ capture/arrest of five Iranian government employees in Arbil, northern Iraq, on January 11.

January 27, 2007

US–Iranian Contest in Iraq, Part 2—Helena Cobban in “Just World News”

    The idea that a large, multi-SUV convoy of anti-US forces…can be careening far and wide throughout the country must be pretty terrifying for…US military planners. [They] now need to be worrying not just…that some of the Iraqi forces with whom they intend to “coordinate” during the upcoming phase are giving real-time info to the…opposition forces, but also about the possibility/probability that much of the terrain of Iraq, including terrain across which their vital supply lines run, is completely out of their control…. If there was an Iranian hand in the affair…perhaps [it was] a warning…not to heat things up too much for the pro-Iranian forces in Iraq.

January 28, 2007

Nuclear Plans in Chaos as Iran Leader Flounders—Peter Beaumont in The Observer

    Iran’s efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos…. Iran’s uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. […] [Iran’s] insistence that it will install 3,000 new centrifuges at the underground Natanz facility in the coming months is as much about domestic PR as reality. […] Some involved…fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes….

Whose Iran?—Laura Secor in the New York Times

    [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s faction was expected to win last month’s elections handily. But the results contradicted the conventional wisdom about the Iranian electorate. The president put forward his own slate of candidates for the city councils. It was trounced. […] By mid-January, Ahmadinejad’s isolation even within his own faction was complete: 150 of 290 members of parliament, including many of Ahmadinejad’s onetime allies, signed a letter criticizing the president’s economic policies for failing to stanch unemployment and inflation. A smaller group also blamed [his] inflammatory foreign-policy rhetoric for the United Nations Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. As if that were not enough, an editorial in Jomhouri Eslami, a newspaper that reflects the views of the supreme leader, accused the president of using the nuclear issue to distract the public from his failed policies. […] The Iranian political system seems to be restoring its equilibrium by showing an extremist president the limits of his power.

They’re Broken Men, So Don’t Let Them Take Us to a New War—Henry Porter in The Observer

    There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran…. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully. […] The two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. […] They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them…. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran’s religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. […] A loss of confidence in both men at home is important because it offers us a brief opportunity to assert diplomacy over the habits of rhetoric and escalation.

Mr. Big: Where is Jalal Talabani Taking Iraq?—Jon Lee Anderson in The New Yorker

    [During a late 2006 visit to Tehran, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani] requested a reversal in Iran’s policy—specifically, that Iran’s leadership “control” [Moqtada al-]Sadr’s militia and ally itself instead with his government, and that it persuade its allies and proxies, including Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, to do the same. Talabani then asked that Iran…cooperate with the Iraqi and U.S. governments in their security plan for Baghdad. […] Talabani proposed that Tehran and Baghdad exchange intelligence, and that Iran help train and equip Iraq’s security forces. […] One of the Iraqis who attended the meeting said that Talabani told [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei that Iraq was “at a make-or-break point and needed Iran’s help.” He went on, “The Supreme Leader said that he understood and would do everything he could.” […] An Iraqi minister came up to me afterward, looking enthusiastic, and…whispered excitedly, “These guys even offered us weapons!” […] In raids on December 21st, U.S. soldiers captured several Iranians, including two men staying across from Talabani’s mansion, in [Shia leader Abdul Aziz al-]Hakim’s compound. The Americans accused the men of being senior Iranian agents…. According to an official in Talabani’s party, Talabani believed that the agents “were acting according to the spirit” of the understanding that he had reached in Tehran.

The Saudi King Stakes Out His Position—Missing Links

    [From] a recent Al-Quds al-Arabi piece…: “Ali Larijani, who is the top Iranian national security official, denied Iran has any direct influence in either Iraq or Lebanon. And he had given to Saudi King Abdulaziz…a message…including an implicit warning against joining in any American diplomatic–military campaign against the Islamic Republic. The source…said there was a proposed agreement between the two countries respecting mutual recognition of minimum rights and fears, including Saudi anxiety about what it calls the Iranian nuclear threat, but at the same time recognition of a leading regional role for Tehran…in keeping with its size and influence in the region.”

January 29, 2007

Saudi Bigshot Presents the Hard-Line Interpretation of the King’s Interview Remarks—Missing Links

    Mamoun Fandy is…a columnist for Asharq al-Awsat [a Saudi-owned newspaper that is close to the royal family]. Fandy says the decision by Bush to permit the killing of Iranian agents in Iraq…is extremely serious, and could result at any time in war between the US and Iran…. It was on account of the seriousness of the situation, Fandy says, that the king sent Prince Bandar to Tehran for talks. […] Iran, directly via its support of Hamas, and indirectly via its support of Syria and Hizbullah, is a major player in the Palestinian issue…. [This raises the question: Is Iran pursuing Arab interests in Palestine, or its own?] If the Arab world is not alarmed by this state of affairs, says Fandy, then perhaps it will never be alarmed again by anything.

January 30, 2007

The Danger of Bush’s Anti-Iran Fatwa—Juan Cole in Salon

    George W. Bush last week announced that American troops in Iraq were henceforth authorized to “kill or capture” any Iranian intelligence agents they discovered in Iraq. […] A prominent Iranian parliamentarian responded to Bush’s threat by saying, “Such an order is a clear terrorist act and against all internationally acknowledged norms.” […] Given Bush’s new directive, how will U.S. troops distinguish between innocent Iranian[s] and spies? […] Maybe the spark for a wider conflict is just what the increasingly desperate President Bush seeks. His fixation on Iranian activities in Iraq cannot be explained by his cover story, which is that Tehran is supplying weapons to forces that kill U.S. troops. […] If Iran is providing materiel to anyone, it is to U.S. allies. […] Maybe what is really going on is that the Bush administration finds itself competing with Iran for influence…and losing. […] At the invitation of the Iraqi government, Iran has now offered to expand its economic presence in Iraq. As Washington grows weaker in Iraq, it is concerned that Iran not pick up the pieces and establish hegemony over its smaller neighbor.

January 31, 2007

Iran May Have Trained Attackers That Killed 5 American Soldiers, U.S. and Iraqis Say—New York Times

    Investigators say they believe that [the January 20 attack in Karbala] may have been trained and financed by Iranian agents…. The sophistication of the attack astonished investigators, who doubt that Iraqis could have carried it out on their own…. Tying Iran to the deadly attack could be helpful to the Bush administration, which has been engaged in an escalating war of words with Iran. […] An Iraqi knowledgeable about the investigation said four suspects had been detained and questioned. […] The suspects…told investigators that “a religious group in Najaf” was involved in the operation…in a clear reference to the Mahdi Army…. Several Iraqi officials [assert] that Iran is financing and training a small number of splinter groups from the Mahdi Army to carry out special operations and assassinations.

Iran: Bush’s Next Disaster?—Joe Conason in Truthdig

    The president still seems to be listening to the same discredited neoconservatives whose fantasies and falsehoods drove us into the Iraqi quagmire. If their plotting succeeds in provoking military conflict with Iran…imagine the entire region convulsed by ethnic and religious conflict. […] Yet regardless of these risks…the White House sends obvious signals of belligerence to Tehran, with the same drumbeat heard during the months that led up to the invasion of Iraq. […] Without irony, [the president] declares that the Iranians…will be held “accountable” for meddling in their neighbor’s internal affairs. […] What sustains Ahmadinejad…is the prospect of military aggression by the United States. […] The more we rely on such threats as the basis for U.S. policy…the closer we come to pulling the trigger, with incalculable consequences.

February 1, 2007

U.S. Delays Report on Iranian Role in Iraq—Los Angeles Times

    The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq…. They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect…. Officials involved in interagency meetings on the issue…believe that some of the material overstates murky evidence and casts a negative light on Iranians who may not be guilty. […] The growing hostility is angering Iraqi leaders, who have begun speaking out against the prospect of conflict between the United States and Iran in their country.

U.S. Says Iran Meddles in Iraq but Is Delaying Release of Data—New York Times

    Ten days ago the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters that within a few days the United States would disclose its evidence…. On Thursday American officials said that the briefing in Baghdad had been postponed…. Some American allies who have seen some of the evidence say it still falls short of an air-tight case. But the main reason for the delay appears to be rooted in the delicate politics of dealing with Iran. “We don’t want to create the impression that we are steaming toward confrontation,” said one senior State Department official familiar with the debate.

Wag-The-Dog Iran Attack Worries Democrats—U.S. News and World Report Political Bulletin

    Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly concerned that President Bush will order air strikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks. […] They suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that Administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq. Under this scenario, Bush would not…zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities. […] Bombing Iran would also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq…at least for a while. But Democrats add that an attack on Iran would probably…precipitate an Iranian response that could dramatically worsen Mideast turmoil….

Time Has Run Out, and the Choice Is Yours—Arthur Silber in The Power of Narrative

    The Democrats…should rescind the Iraq authorization of force resolution…and they should pass resolutions stating that, if Bush attacks Iran in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War…that will be grounds for immediate impeachment. And they should draft articles of impeachment NOW, just in case they need them. And they should publish them in every major newspaper, and read them on television every night. […] It simply is not true there’s nothing the Democrats can do to stop the drive toward a wider war. For God’s sake, they control Congress now. […] If, several months or a year from now, we are in the middle of a catastrophic and ever-widening war…let no Democrat be heard to say…: “We didn’t want this to happen, but there wasn’t anything we could do to stop it!”

Testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee—Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, in The Washington Note

    The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. […] The final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves…some provocation in Iraq…culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. […] Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia…. This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that…most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism…. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy. […] Right or wrong, many view the establishment of [imperial] hegemony as the primary reason for intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level.

The story continues in part 4, part 5 and part 6.

Comments

Comment from Reda
Time: March 9, 2007, 13:34

I just read an a post about how the americans decided just after the 9/11 to attack Irak and to finish the job with Iran. Those revelations are from Gen. Wesley clarke.
Here is the link :

http://akratique.blogspot.com/2007/03/la-liste.html

Enjoy

Comment from eatbees
Time: March 10, 2007, 07:52

Reda, thanks for the link… I like Wesley Clark and his vision of international politics (he is a longstanding opponent of the war in Iraq)… for example, he would make a great vice presidential candidate with Barack Obama!

I’ll use the quote you sent once I get caught up with events, probably in “Iran Fever (part 5)” … by the way, you win some kind of prize for being the first person to comment on one of my Iran posts!

Comment from Reda
Time: March 13, 2007, 06:38

A prize ? okiz i’ll send u my account number :)

Comment from Yahia
Time: March 13, 2007, 18:19

It’s not fair. Iran Fevers aren’t your first articles about Iran!

Hey EatbeesBlog readers, let’s make a virtual protest.

Comment from Amir
Time: March 14, 2007, 13:18

Very nice collection of news about Iran.

Comment from eatbees
Time: March 14, 2007, 13:27

@Yahia — It’s true that I’ve written about Iran before, but I don’t think I got any comments on those posts either! If you can find a comment older than Reda’s, you get the “finding lost comments” prize and Reda gets demoted to 2nd place!

@Amir — Come back in 24 hours for “Iran Fever 4”!

Write a comment